VulnerabilityPublished 14 Sep 2025Updated 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10391: CRMEB · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects CRMEBSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
CRMEB	Affected =5.6.0 =5.6.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

2) Employ network-level controls such as egress filtering and firewall rules to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the CRMEB server to only trusted destinations, preventing SSRF exploitation from reaching internal services. 3) Use web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious SSRF patterns targeting the vulnerable function. 4) Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the CRMEB server, focusing on unexpected internal or external destinations. 5) Consider isolating the CRMEB application in a segmented network zone with limited access to sensitive internal resources. 6) If possible, upgrade to a later version of CRMEB once a patch is released or consider alternative CRM solutions until the vulnerability is addressed. 7) Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability scanning to identify any exploitation attempts or related weaknesses. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on network segmentation, input filtering, and monitoring specific to the SSRF vector in CRMEB.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in CRMEB up to 5.6.1. The impacted element is the function testOutUrl of the file app/services/out/OutAccountServices.php. The manipulation of the argument push_token_url leads to server-side request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using CRMEB versions 5.6.0 or 5.6.1, this SSRF vulnerability poses a significant risk. Exploitation could allow attackers to access internal systems or services behind firewalls, potentially exposing sensitive customer data or internal APIs. This could lead to data breaches, unauthorized access to internal resources, or lateral movement within corporate networks. Given the CRM nature of the product, the confidentiality of customer relationship data is at risk, which can have regulatory implications under GDPR. Additionally, SSRF can be a stepping stone for more complex attacks, including cloud metadata service exploitation or internal service manipulation, which could impact availability or integrity of services. The medium CVSS score reflects limited direct impact but does not fully capture the potential for chained attacks or data exposure. The lack of vendor response and patch increases the urgency for European organizations to implement compensating controls. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection requirements or those heavily reliant on CRMEB for customer data management are particularly vulnerable to reputational and compliance risks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Sep 2025, 00:41 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats